RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02726 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. Her narrative reason for separation be changed. 

 

2. Her reenlistment (RE) code of “2C” (Involuntarily separated 
with an honorable discharge, or entry-level separation without 
characterization of service) be changed to allow her to reenter 
military service. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

She does not and never had a mental disorder or other condition 
that would prohibit her successful completion of rigorous and 
extensive physical/psychological training. She served 
successfully as a Law Enforcement Officer, both before and after 
her military service. A discharge for Mental Disorders is 
somewhat generic and does not apply to her situation. 

 

In support of her request, the applicant provides copies of her 
pre-employment and medical records. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 16 Dec 08, the applicant contracted her enlistment in the 
Regular Air Force. 

 

On 9 Jan 09, the applicant’s commander notified her that he was 
recommending her discharge from the Air Force for a condition 
that interfered with military service (mental disorders). The 
specific reason for the discharge action was on 31 Dec 08, the 
applicant was diagnosed by the Department of Mental Health as 
having a mental disorder. 

 

Her commander advised her of her rights in this matter. On 
9 Jan 09, she acknowledged receipt of the notification of 
discharge and, after consulting with legal counsel, waived her 


right to submit a statement in her own behalf. She also 
acknowledged if discharged she was not entitled to any disability 
retirement, or severance pay. 

 

On 12 Jan 09, the legal office reviewed the case and found it 
legally sufficient to support separation and recommended she be 
furnished and entry level separation. 

 

On 13 Jan 09, the discharge authority directed discharge with an 
entry level separation. On 14 Jan 09, the applicant was 
furnished an entry-level separation with uncharacterized service 
and was credited with 29 days of active service. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial noting the documentation in the 
applicant’s master personnel records indicates the discharge, to 
include the narrative reason for separation, was consistent with 
the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge 
instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge 
authority. Although the applicant has provided documentation 
indicating she no longer shows symptoms consistent with her 
condition and is coping well in her civilian capacity, it does not 
change the basis for which she was discharged. The military 
environment is unique and the stressors encountered in this 
environment may not appear or surface when removed from the 
military environment. 

 

Airmen are given an entry-level separation when separation is 
initiated in the first 180 days of continuous active service. 
The Department of Defense (DoD) determined if a service member 
served less than 180 days of continuous active service, it would 
be unfair to the service member or the service to characterize 
their limited service. 

 

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial noting the applicant has not provided 
any evidence to support a change her RE code. The applicant 
received the appropriate RE code based on her receiving an entry 
level separation with uncharacterized service. 

 

The complete copy of AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant’s Military Training Instructor during her time on 
active duty states the applicant displayed a high degree of 
integrity, responsibility, and ambition. She recalls the 
applicant’s symptoms came on very suddenly and the applicant was 


distraught with her condition. The applicant often stated to her 
and a team member that what she was feeling was not normal for her 
and she felt something was not right. The Training Instructor 
further states she has seen many trainees “fake” symptoms to be 
discharged, but the applicant seemed to be genuinely upset over 
her situation and did not comprehend why she was having the 
feelings she was having. The Training Instructor believes the 
applicant would be an asset to the Air Force and would make an 
outstanding airman. 

 

A complete copy of the Character Reference is at Exhibit F. 

 

The applicant states she understands and respects the 
recommendation from the Separations Branch that her request be 
denied due to the circumstances surrounding her discharge. She 
also understands this would be a valid conclusion based on the 
documentation in her records. However, she believes there were 
aspects of her discharge that are not documented in her records. 
First, it was stated several times that she was admitted to the 
hospital and treated for suicidal ideations. Before going to the 
hospital, she was repeatedly asked if she was a harm to herself or 
others. She repeatedly denied this because she did not have any 
suicidal inclinations and that would be a violation of her 
religious beliefs and a moral discredit to herself and family. 
Her treating physician asked her if she would like to return to 
her flight to complete training. At the time she felt being 
discharged would be in her best interest. While awaiting 
discharge she tried to return to her flight to complete her 
training, but was not allowed to even if it was another unit. 

 

Shortly, after returning to her home town, she was examined by 
Gynecologist and explained her symptoms to him, thinking it could 
be a physical problem and not a mental problem. Due to the 
physical changes that her body experienced in training, her 
symptoms could have been caused by Menorrhagia. She believes 
another occurrence can be avoided because she is aware of the 
signs and symptoms of her condition and knows how to remedy them 
without interfering with her training. 

 

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit G. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

 

1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 
law or regulations. 

 

2. The application was timely filed. 

 

3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. We took 
notice of the applicant's complete submission, including her 
response to the Air Force evaluations, in judging the merits of 


the case; however, we find no evidence of an error or injustice 
that occurred in the discharge processing. Based on the evidence 
of record, it appears the discharge was consistent with the 
substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within 
the commander's discretionary authority. The applicant has 
provided no evidence which would lead us to believe the 
characterization of the service was improper or contrary to the 
provisions of the governing regulation, or the RE code and 
narrative reason issued in conjunction with her discharge were 
erroneous or inappropriately assigned. Therefore, in the absence 
of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to 
recommend granting the relief sought. 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and the 
application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of 
newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this 
application. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-02726 in Executive Session on 1 Mar 12, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Jul 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 13 Oct 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 13 Oct 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Dec 11. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, Character Reference, dated 14 Dec 11. 

 Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 15 Dec 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Chair